Weapons

As had been threatened, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il reportedly
conducted an underground nuclear test yesterday, a move which
promotes a global nuclear arms race and nullifies non-proliferation agreements.

As you might recall, the Bush administration started its
"biodefense" spending spree following the September 2001
deadly anthrax attacks, and one of its first projects was to
genetically engineer a super-resistant, even more deadly version of
the anthrax bacteria.

As the body count from the tsunami rises, America's international
reputation plummets to new depths, thanks to the Bush
administration's smugly incompetent response.

While other world leaders immediately put forward action plans and
solid donations, Bush has spent most of the past critical week on
holiday at his Texas "ranch," riding his mountain bike and
avoiding the press. Predictably, only allegations of stinginess
increased the White House's initial measly offer of $15 million for
the relief effort to a grand total of $35 million.

The US has always been somewhat impatient with international
non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium,
in the past six years the States has conducted 19 nuclear tests,
dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable.

The class action suit names 11 companies and 33 banks alleged to have
helped Iraq with its chemical weapons program in the 1980's, despite
knowledge Saddam Hussein was actively using WMD against both Iranians
and his own people.

Illegal biological and nuclear weapons production is on the rise - in
the United States.

Ignoring the internationally-recognized Biological Weapons
Convention, the US
Army has patented a new grenade capable of delivering biological and
chemical agents. Irony wasn't lost on the watchdog group Sunshine
Project which observed, "Hans Blix might have an easier time
finding illegal weapons if he were inspecting near Baltimore [site of
the Army's Edgewood Arsenal facility, where two of the inventors
work] instead of Baghdad."

The UMRC study found "astonishing" levels of uranium in the
urine of Afghan civilians living in Nangarhar province, one of many
places coalition forces bombarded with a new generation of
"cave-busting" and seismic shock warheads. Interestingly,
none of the civilians tested at Nangarhar showed traces of depleted
uranium (DU), yet hundreds exhibited symptoms resembling those of
DU-exposed Gulf War veterans.

The implications are ominous. Independent studies show coalition
forces used toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads in
Afghanistan, but if the "mystery" uranium in Nangahar isn't
DU, what is it? What kinds of radioactive ammunition were used
elsewhere in Afghanistan? What are the long-term health implications
for civilians and service members? And what are the moral, let alone
criminal, implications of radiating civilian populations?

Unfortunately, Afghanistan isn't the only country reeling under the
Bush administration's idea of "liberation" - Iraq has
arguably fared worse. New evidence suggests the US
invasion may have killed up to 10,000 Iraqi civilians, many from
cluster bombs dropped into densely populated civilian areas.
Meanwhile, US and British occupying forces are accused of illegally
detaining and torturing Iraqi civilians, and the US military has
kicked around the idea of having Iraqi "hooligans ... either
captured or killed."

Of course, if Iraq was used as a testing ground for radioactive
weaponry, as appears to have been the case in Afghanistan, then the
true civilian costs in cancers, birth defects and human suffering
could be immeasurable.

As might be expected, the US Department of Defense (DOD) has shown
little interest in pinpointing the medical effects of radioactive
weaponry. In the 1991 Gulf War, an estimated 320
tons of DU ammunition was dumped on Iraq, and the Pentagon later
acknowledged over 900 American soldiers had sustained "moderate
to heavy" DU exposure. Few epidemiological studies have been
conducted to assess the damage though, and even worse, US government
officials have lied to cover up bad results.

For example, a Pentagon spokesperson recently told the NATO press
corps, "We have seen no cancers or leukemia" in a group of
60 Gulf War vets involved in a DU-study program, despite that fact
that two
participants had in fact contracted cancer. And in a press
briefing last March, a DOD spokesperson downplayed health risks
associated with DU, claiming Iraqis complained about it only
"because we kicked the crap out of them."

Findings like these have prompted the European Parliament to call for
a moratorium on DU ammunition (and other types of uranium warheads)
pending independent investigations into their possible harmful
effects. Similarly, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) has announced
plans to test the Iraqi environment for DU, and the World Health
Organization (WHO) may begin similar testing on the human population.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that America may have used
radioactive weaponry to justify invading other countries to search
for radioactive weaponry. Bitter irony too that our service members
were put at increased risk because of the weapons our government gave them.

One of the legacies of the Vietnam War is the now infamous quote from
an American military press officer, "we had to destroy the
village in order to save it." Rings some bells these days. In
the name of "fighting terror," countries with secret
weapons programs are poised to pulverize Iraq because of its secret
weapons programs. And Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are being
used against civilians in order to prevent WMD from being used
against civilians.

So let's see - you're in your last year of school and freaked out
about the gloomy job picture? Just heard about those 250,000 laid off
last month and wondering how you'll be able to make a decent living?
No problem! With the new "War on Terrorism" and billions of
war dollars suddenly floating around, a whole world of opportunity
has opened up! Ok, so it would be much easier just to own a big
airline, make major contributions to Bush's presidential campaign,
receive billions in subsidies and then lay off 100,000 workers
anyway. You can be sure someone made a nice little profit out of
that. But for the rest of us there are some great options too.

As moviegoers throng to Hollywood's politically correct, dumbed-down
version of "The Good War," a different kind of Pearl Harbor
is being pursued in Bush's "Star Wars" program - and in
both, truth is the first casualty. It's easier to focus on good
looking actors and grandiose bomb sequences than on painful
realities; why risk box office mega-profits by putting Pearl Harbor
in its proper context?